chaicka

tht said:

Still don't understand the reasons for going from 4 e-cores to 2 e-cores. Then, baselining 8 p-cores for the Jade SoC is also curious decision. They spent the transistors to double up the media blocks, in addition to the GPU cores. Why not add another 4 p-core CPU cluster? Probably something to do with locality to caches, but interesting set of design choices versus SoC size or transistors spent. They have the thermal budget for another 4 p-cores.

Perhaps reserve for arrival of 3nm or 4nm?

gatorguy said:

.......... I believe if third party appstores are ever allowed it will be because a court has found Apple guilty in some antitrust action. 

If any court is so dumb to ever find Apple guilty of antitrust just because of its App Store, then many platform's proprietary digital store will fall under the same. Example: Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, etc...

rob53 said:

22july2013 said:

Exciting times. I've been arguing for this for years and that's why so many people hate me on this forum.

So you believe a developer has every right in the world to post their apps for free on the Apple App Store? Give me one legitimate reason why Apple should be required to host these apps for free. Apple doesn't charge for free apps but could start doing that if they wanted to. Apple could also start charging developers to even put their apps on the Apple App Store and if these stupid laws pass, I'm all for Apple doing that. There's no way anyone could force Apple to host things on their servers for free. It would be like me hosting your email server on my hardware, which I maintain, for free. Get a grip, I'd never do that and I doubt any company would do that. This shows how stupid these laws are.

Of course, if you want to have your own payment system, then be prepared for Apple to start charging you a hosting fee for every download and install of that app. That's only fair isn't it?

Perhaps a progressive switching towards a model similar/referencing to colocation hosting services may be the way out on how to deal with developers. Catalog 'App Store' services (to developers) and a price tag accordingly.

Example: Colocation/Hosting Providers charges for # of CPUs, GBs of RAM, GBs of Storage Capacity. In the case of App Store, it can be something like:

• App Hosting Service Cat A - 100MB @ $1.00 (w/o data backup) per app version and per market (if app is available/publish in 10 markets, it's charged accordingly);
• App Hosting Service Cat B - 100MB @ $5.00 (inclusive of data backup, retention policy of 14 days) per app version and per market;

It may also be two differentiated models:

• Existing 'pool-based' Model for those developers who opt to stick;
• New per service per market based Model.

Ultimately, these creates choices and shut those politicians and regulators up. Apple can also remove itself from some of the unnecessary collateral liabilities which it has been shouldering for last decade or longer. Example: Parents will no longer be able to get support from Apple for app purchases made by their children which are paid via non-Apple payment system. Not legal expert here but I am sure there are legal liabilities which Apple can save itself from. Who knows, maybe a total revamp of App Store where it can toggle between Apple Payment mode or Non-Apple Payment mode and lists only those apps which have opted for each of the mode, and associated set of T&Cs for each mode. 

ralphdaily said:

I want to know how he attached the AirTag to his wallet.

Same here. I tried and I find it caused a bulge when I slid the AirTag in an inner compartment of a usual/common men's wallet. For ladies' wallet, it's easier cause it's usually longer or thicker.

If Apple products become like Android, I will be among the first to migrate away to first viable alternative. Just as much as being among the first to rid all Facebook-related apps off every single device I own and/or use, and going back to the web-based since there’s less data for them to track with (for now).

Regulators are nothing but trying ways to milk cows for their own fundings. Are they really standing on the side of the massive consumers’ side who voted with their wallets on Apple products?

is she just trying to reduce Apple into the yesterdecade’s Nokia?